Connect2

Ekul Namsob said:

Tom Crispin said:

Local to me there is the Bermondsey link:
http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=15

Local to Wafflycat there is this:
http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=74

And Tony should be happy about this deselection local to him:
http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/project_detail.php?id=84

Ah well. There is nothing local to me. Does that mean I should vote
against it?

Cheers,
Luke

There wasn't anything local to me until we campaigned for it - you could
always start a campaign rather than campaign against cycle facilities.

Tom Crispin said:

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:14:44 GMT,

(Ekul Namsob) said:

No facilities are proposed anywhere near me. I suppose that means
Preston isn't divided by a railway line or three, three motorways and a
river.

Having once cycled through Preston, I would say that it could do with
a cycle bridge or two.

Likewise. In particular, it would be good to be able to cross the
ringroad. It's not, you see, Sustrans' intentions that I dislike. It's
the execution.

The City Council have big plans for a Guild Wheel (to be launched for
the Preston Guild of 2012) which should connect various parts of the
city. Unfortunately, despite repeated requests they have not been
forthcoming with such details as quite where they plan to put the spokes
or rims and I fear that they might emulate what I understand to be
Sustrans' mistake round here and forget to look at the contours.

The stretch of route I so dislike is within three hundred yards or so of
the end of my street. Indeed, it's within three hundred yards or so of a
lot of streets. It just appears as though Sustrans never thought to
connect it to those streets by anything other than Brockholes Brow (a
steep (14%) stretch of the A59 which has one of the worst accident
records in Lancashire), and Watery Lane (a steep (12%) stretch of
scree). If this is supposed to encourage utility cycling then I really
don't understand where Sustrans are coming from.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

wafflycat w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

"Peter Scandrett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I thought this was extra lottery money being talked about? Noone's
budget - the council, highways agency or anyone else's...?

(I might have just got a bit confused in this thread, in which case I
apologise.)

Quoted message said:

Do you think that Joe Public is going to actually notice the difference? It
is still Joe Public's money being spent.

It's not my money: I'm not stupid enough to play the lottery, which is
fortunate as my fantasy lottery numbers would have given me a total of
thirty pounds of winnings for an expenditure of something in the region
of seven hundred quid over the last ten years. (I'm not sure when
midweek draws started.)

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Mark Annand said:

Ekul Namsob wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ah well. There is nothing local to me. Does that mean I should vote
against it?

Quoted message said:

There wasn't anything local to me until we campaigned for it - you could
always start a campaign rather than campaign against cycle facilities.

Indeed. That's why I've asked the council to give details of their
proposed Guild Wheel. I am not campaigning against cycle facilities, I
just will not vote for one's designed by an organisation with, in my
experience, a consistent record of outputting [censored].

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

in message <[email hidden]>, tam

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is a cracking thread.
I do hope it goes on at this level.
Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.

It isn't being spent on cycling. And later, when we do want some money
spent on cycling, we won't get it because the 'cycling budget' will
already have been squandered.

Quoted message said:

Why not take the improvements AND cycle on the roads.

That assumes they are improvements - and that is precisely the point
we're arguing.

I am a bit confused again.
The money is being spent on improving routes for cycles.

Because there's no demand for them - cyclists are not the ones arguing for
them - and they won't provide a significant benefit to cyclists.

Quoted message said:

How is that- not money- being spent on cycling.

If someone built you an enormous dome in South London with an exhibition of
tat in it, would that be money spent on you? Face it, they did. They spent
£789 million on it. Did you go? If the answer is 'no', then you'll
understand why I'd far rather see the money being spent on Connect2 being
spent instead on training for adults returning to cycling, or starting
cycling for the first time.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; no eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn.
;; Jim Morrison

in message
<[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

Same challenge as to Tony. How many of the Connect2 schemes are
segregated paths on the same route?

Answer (AFAIHS) : None. They are new links that make the journey
shorter and more convenient and do represent some of the best ideas in
terms of improving the infrastructure for cycling.

Are you seriously arguing that cyclists should only use roads shared
with motor vehicles?

David, I've possibly overstated my case here. Where a cycle route provides
a genuine saving of distance or of gradient or an alternative to a busy
and complex junction, /and/ is well surfaced and lit and swept to the same
standard as nearby roads, and there is a strategic reason for putting a
link there (i.e. a substantial population who could use the link if it
were built, whether or not they currently cycle), and where the link
crosses any existing roads at grade, there are traffic lights giving at
least equal priority to cycle traffic, then I'm happy to support it.

How many of the proposed Connect2 links fulfil those criteria? (not a
rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to know).

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

in message <[email hidden]>, Tom Crispin

(') said:

Segregated facilities encourage more cycling. More cycling on
segregated facilities will lead, in time, to more cycling on roads.

That I absolutely refute, with plenty of evidence from around the world,
and from this country too. Segregated facilities do /not/ encourage more
cycling, and they do /not/ lead to more cycling on the road. I hold up
East Kilbride as a clear and stunning example of this - miles and miles of
good quality, well maintained cycle path, good, clean, well lit cycle
underpasses on every major junction, and all almost entirely unused. And
virtually no cycling on the road either.

And you can't claim that this is because of steep hills - there are steep
hills outside the town, but not within it. And it's not because these
facilities are new, either - they're there in the original design of the
town. They link all the housing estates with the shopping centre and with
all the industrial areas. You could not have a more perfect example of how
to plan a town well with segregated cycling than East Kilbride.

So if these - genuinely good - segregated facilities 'encourage more
cycling', where are the cyclists who are thus encouraged? On my morning
commute I see one - just one - other cyclist, and he, like me, is on the
road.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed

in message <[email hidden]>, Tom Crispin

(') said:

Tony Raven said:

So getting more people cycling off the roads is both going to make
motorists more tolerant of cyclists on the road. I see..

Clearly you don't. Generating a larger number of cyclists will make
motorists more tolerant.

Indeed - /providing/ those cyclists are on the road.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The trouble with Simon is that he only opens his mouth to change feet.
;; of me, by a 'friend'

in message
<[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

NCN has come in at a 'continuous route at any cost' philosophy. It got
a lot of stick for the contrived nature of many of the routes, and the
poor quality of the farcilities which are rightly lampooned. However,
it has got people cycling.

Has it?

That's a genuine question. Do you know that? Does anyone know that? What
studies have been done? What is the net increase in kilometres cycled that
can be ascribed to people who would not have cycled but for the NCN?

I have to say I'm /deeply/ skeptical.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists

">>>> This is a cracking thread.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I do hope it goes on at this level.
> Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.

It isn't being spent on cycling. And later, when we do want some money
spent on cycling, we won't get it because the 'cycling budget' will
already have been squandered.

> Why not take the improvements AND cycle on the roads.

That assumes they are improvements - and that is precisely the point
we're arguing.

I am a bit confused again.
The money is being spent on improving routes for cycles.

Because there's no demand for them - cyclists are not the ones arguing for
them - and they won't provide a significant benefit to cyclists.

Sez you-but-not us who have used properly designed ones.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How is that- not money- being spent on cycling.

If someone built you an enormous dome in South London with an exhibition
of
tat in it, would that be money spent on you? Face it, they did. They spent
£789 million on it. Did you go? If the answer is 'no', then you'll
understand why I'd far rather see the money being spent on Connect2 being
spent instead on training for adults returning to cycling, or starting
cycling for the first time.

--

I went to the dome.
Since my money was spent on it I went to see it.
Its a fantastic bit of-architecture?--civil engineering?.

A total waste of £789 million.

I wonder how many miles of cycle path it would have built.
Governments will always lavish cash on mad schemes.
Lets lavish govt. cash on cycling.
Tam

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message
<[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

NCN has come in at a 'continuous route at any cost' philosophy. It got
a lot of stick for the contrived nature of many of the routes, and the
poor quality of the farcilities which are rightly lampooned. However,
it has got people cycling.

Has it?

That's a genuine question. Do you know that? Does anyone know that? What
studies have been done? What is the net increase in kilometres cycled that
can be ascribed to people who would not have cycled but for the NCN?

I have to say I'm /deeply/ skeptical.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Generally Not Used
;; Except by Middle Aged Computer Scientists

As I cycle around on the road of this fair land I occasionally come across
signs indicating a NCN "Cycle Route" but that is all I see.

If you are not on such a route then it is totally hidden from sight of anyone
else except from those occasional and poorly signed crossing points. Not a
sign post saying " 12 miles to Timbuctoo" or anything that would entice me to
consider veering off my chosen track!

A couple of year ago I looked in detail at following the "North Sea Cycle
Route" but when I looked at the routing in England in particular I was quite
amazed at the huge meandering of the Recommended routes which seemed intent on
choosing the most devious out of the way track and path -- just to justify it
being traffic free.

I don't want to cycle "traffic free" -- I am traffic! And I want other
traffic to regard me as such! If I cycle off road I am invisible ----- " out
of sight out of mind" -- and out of the way of the cagers.

I see no evidence that the use of the existing NCN routes is encouraging
cycling.

The short stretch I use, occasionally, on my shopping trips is frequented by
boys on unlicensed motorbikes ( and the frequent gates have no effect on
them) , littered with debris and glass and is never cleaned from year to year!
It is frequently "littered" with larger debris like burnt out cars. It is
unpoliced and I suspect that the rights that I enjoy "on road" under the
Highway Code cease to exist the moment I go "Off road".

I have no wish to see Sustrans expending lottery monies ( and I do NOT waste
my money on the lottery ever) on capital expenditure projects which will then
never be maintained and will decay as the existing Sustrans routes do!

So I voted for the Sherwood project instead!

Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Ekul Namsob said:

The City Council have big plans for a Guild Wheel (to be launched for
the Preston Guild of 2012) which should connect various parts of the
city.

OT, but does Preston's replica tramway bridge across the Ribble serve a
useful function now, and is it in fair condition?

Mark

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Make no mistake, the more money spent on 'traffic-free' farcilities, where
cyclists are segregated away from roads, the greater the clamour to get us
off the roads completely.

I see no evidence to back up that claim. Indeed, the opposite may be
the case.

Are you honestly saying you have never had "Get on the cyclepath!"
shouted at you while cycling on the road

No, but I've never heard "get on the towpath!" or "get on the converted
railway track!"

People seem to be talking about different things. I think there is a
distinction to be drawn between on-road and next-to-road cycle provision
on the one hand and completely-somewhere-else provision such as the
Bath-Bristol path or the Avenue Vert in France on the other.

In the former case, I strongly support the HoP, not only from a
rights-of-cyclists perspective but also because I suspect that if a
route has enough cyclists that a dedicated cycle path would be
considered, it's probably used significantly for local journeys and it
would be good for motorist karma to have the speed on the carriageways
slowed down a bit anyway.

In the latter case, I think some facilities are sufficiently different
from roads that only the terminally stupid would consider them an
alternative (and they'd be unlikely even to know of their existence),
and you wouldn't campaign against gyms on the grounds that they
encourage car users to shout "get on the treadmill" at the joggers they
pass.

-dan

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So getting more people cycling off the roads is both going to make
motorists more tolerant of cyclists on the road. I see..

Clearly you don't. Generating a larger number of cyclists will make
motorists more tolerant.

How if the cyclists are out of sight and out of mind on their segregated
cycleways. Its like saying putting more horses in the fields will make
motorists more tolerant of horses on the road.

One possible mechanism would be that the new weekend cyclists
"generated" by these routes are most likely to be motorists as well.
Pootling around Rutland Water on a Saturday afternoon is not going to
give them all the necessary skills to attempt the Monday urban commute,
but the experience might leave them with slightly more common feeling
towards those that do.

-dan

Quoting tam <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

the govt. has not banned smoking---------why should they ban cyclists on
roads.
This is paranoia---------in my opinion.

It may have escaped your notice, but cycling is already banned on many
roads. To think that something that has happened could happen is hardly
paranoia.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Leicesterday, November.

In article said:

Tony Raven said:

[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

> So getting more people cycling off the roads is both going to make
> motorists more tolerant of cyclists on the road. I see..
Clearly you don't. Generating a larger number of cyclists will make
motorists more tolerant.

How if the cyclists are out of sight and out of mind on their segregated
cycleways. Its like saying putting more horses in the fields will make
motorists more tolerant of horses on the road.

One possible mechanism would be that the new weekend cyclists
"generated" by these routes are most likely to be motorists as well.
Pootling around Rutland Water on a Saturday afternoon is not going to
give them all the necessary skills to attempt the Monday urban commute,
but the experience might leave them with slightly more common feeling
towards those that do.

It might. Or it might leave them feeling that cycling is a recreational
activity that doesn't belong on the roads during urban commute hours.

Ekul Namsob said:

Indeed. That's why I've asked the council to give details of their
proposed Guild Wheel. I am not campaigning against cycle facilities, I
just will not vote for one's designed by an organisation with, in my
experience, a consistent record of outputting [censored].

if Sustrans /consistently/ produced [censored] then everything on the NCN
would be awful, but there's a lot of really nice riding to be done on
it, including on-road. Therefore their record is not consistent, which
may be an argument in itself but it isn't the one you're making.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Nigel Cliffe said:

Tony appears to be arguing that a bridge over a 70mph dual carriageway, or
an underpass crossing a major bypass intersection where two 70mph roads meet
with an intermediate roundabout, complete with high-speed side lanes, is a
bad thing and should be opposed by all "cyclists who support right to ride
on the road". His argument appears to be that the cyclist should use
those roads to complete their journeys, rather than any cycle facility.

Just this very morning my wife was listening to the general news with
her Dutch ears and bemoaning the tendency of the British to polarise
things. if they're not /completely/ white, then it *must* be the case
that they're /completely/ black. I think it's a fair criticism in many
cases, this being one of them.
There really are different degrees of things between 1 and 0, and there
are pragmatic approaches to finding a suitable grey rather than
postulating black or white from a high horse and getting nowhere.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Simon Brooke said:

in message
<[email hidden]>, David

Martin (') said:

Same challenge as to Tony. How many of the Connect2 schemes are
segregated paths on the same route?

Quoted message said:

Answer (AFAIHS) : None. They are new links that make the journey
shorter and more convenient and do represent some of the best ideas in
terms of improving the infrastructure for cycling.

Quoted message said:

Are you seriously arguing that cyclists should only use roads shared
with motor vehicles?

David, I've possibly overstated my case here. Where a cycle route provides
a genuine saving of distance or of gradient or an alternative to a busy
and complex junction, /and/ is well surfaced and lit and swept to the same
standard as nearby roads, and there is a strategic reason for putting a
link there (i.e. a substantial population who could use the link if it
were built, whether or not they currently cycle), and where the link
crosses any existing roads at grade, there are traffic lights giving at
least equal priority to cycle traffic, then I'm happy to support it.

How many of the proposed Connect2 links fulfil those criteria? (not a
rhetorical question, I'd genuinely like to know).

Apart from the sweeping issue, with which I am not familiar, from what
I have seen the intention is to have all those factors. The links are
(in the case of the dozen or so that I have looked at) strategic,
provide distance savings and are well surfaced. Gradient is not always
better than the road alternative (e.g. the bridge over the M8 in
Glasgow) but the alternative is far worse in this case. Typically they
provide completely new strategic links rather than a junction bypass
(Glasgow is somewhat of an exception in this case as there are
somewhat unpleasant junctions crossing the M8 at street level.)
Sweeping of roads is typically done by motor traffic which removes
glass, leaves and pedestrians.

Lets be clear, Sustrans did not build 90% of the routes labelled as
the NCN. Most of it's work was in persuading local councils to adopt
routes and sign them. Anyone who has worked with local councils cycle
planning will understand the constraints and trouble that is. It is
not Sustrans demanding the [censored] facilities. However, with a philosophy
of having a continuous network rather than a broken series of paths,
they have been constrained into accepting what the LA have offered.
These, as Pete will confirm has happened in Tayside, can get upgraded
and improved over time. Whether accepting sub-standard parts of the
network is an acceptable price to pay for having a continuously signed
network is a political and philosophical point we can argue over.

It is probably time to begin an audit of the NCN where the routes are
objectively graded against usability criteria like design speed,
having to yield/stop, and directness/gradient. I'd reckon that Dundee
would do pretty well - East Kilbride may do less well despite having
on the surface a supposedly good network of paths. It is not the good
bits that get you credit, it is the bad bits that lose it.

...d

in message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch

(') said:

Ekul Namsob said:

Indeed. That's why I've asked the council to give details of their
proposed Guild Wheel. I am not campaigning against cycle facilities, I
just will not vote for one's designed by an organisation with, in my
experience, a consistent record of outputting [censored].

if Sustrans /consistently/ produced [censored] then everything on the NCN
would be awful, but there's a lot of really nice riding to be done on
it, including on-road.

There's certainly a lot of really nice riding on roads which have been
decorated with NCN stickers. But those roads were just as nice to ride
before the NCN stickers were added. Sustrans have done nothing to add
value to those roads, for cyclists.

But, for example, following NCN7 from Creetown into Gatehouse of Fleet, you
get routed off a wide, quiet village street with a 30mph speed limit which
takes you past all the cafes and shops, and instead taken through a maze
of footpaths and back alleys and pedestrian bridges, with a number of 90
degree turns you simply would not be able to ride a tandem through.

That's not adding value. That's removing value - actively detracting from
the cycling experience. When I originally planned the 7/24 route it was my
intention to make the maximum possible use of cycle facilities, partly to
publicise them. And I've found that they're simply unusable or unsafe. The
descent from the old railway to the road at Creetown is too steep, is
under trees and is inadequately maintained, with leaves and mud on the
surface most of the time, leading to very hazardous braking. The section
through Gatehouse I've described. In Dumfries there is a new and very
beautiful cycle-route bridge over the river, exactly where it's needed:

http://www.purpleboxproductions.com/?p=41

But there are no links going southwest from the southwestern end. Instead
you have to go back up north to join the same road as you would have used
if you'd used the St Michael bridge, so the new bridge just introduces a
one-mile detour to no benefit.

Quoted message said:

Therefore their record is not consistent, which
may be an argument in itself but it isn't the one you're making.

One thing about their policy militates against them being able to produce
good routes: an NCN route may not cross a 'major road' at grade, but
there's no funding for underpasses or flyovers. The consequence is that
NCNs often take bizarrely convoluted routes to take advantage of
existing 'not at grade' crossings, and in my experience these convoluted
routes often involve dangers at least equivalent to the 'at grade'
crossing.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Q: Whats a webmaster?
A: Like a spider, but nowhere near as intelligent.